BNSF to begin Montana river clean-up

The Environmental
Protection Agency has ordered BNSF to begin removing contaminated sediments in
the upper reach of the Whitefish River by Sept. 25, the Whitefish Pilot
reports. The order follows a finding that the company is responsible for the
river contamination under the Oil Pollution Act, said David Romero, an on-scene
coordinator from the EPA's Region 8 office in Denver. Romero said he informed
BNSF of the finding in March.

The EPA has ordered BNSF
to clean up the river from the company's upstream boundary all the way
downstream to JP Road, to ensure the interceptor trench between the BNSF
railyard and the river is functioning correctly and to address all potential
sources of petroleum products in the river. The EPA's order is being made under
the Oil Pollution Act, which covers navigable waters of the U.S., and not under
federal CERCLA Superfund law.

"If there is
sediment that contains enough oil to cause a sheen in the river and does appear
to have impacted the environment, it needs to be removed," Romero said.
"If the sheen appears after someone mucks up the sediments, it's still an
issue. The driver is the sheen."

In one scenario, metal
coffer dams lined with plastic sheeting will isolate clean-up areas, which will
be dewatered before excavation of contaminated sediment begins. Water will run
through multi-stage filtering systems, to remove sediment and oil, before
re-entering the river.

The EPA first learned
about the river contamination in August 2007 when a recreationist reported
getting oil on his ankles and legs after wading in the river, Romero said. An EPA
team came to Whitefish several times since then to collect samples. By spring
2008, they learned the state had established a Superfund site at the BNSF
railyard in Whitefish and began working more closely with state agencies.

"We identified the
boundaries of the contamination and did a step-by-step analysis that included
'fingerprinting' the sediments," Romero explained. "We were finding
Bunker C fuel oil and diesel fuel in the sediments downgradient from the
railyard."

The EPA eliminated
leaking underground storage tanks listed in the state's LUST database as
potential sources of the contamination, Romero said. One potential underground
tank held gasoline, not diesel fuel. In addition, the "tight soils" in
Whitefish generally prevent the migration of underground plumes from leaking
underground tanks.

The quantity of oil in
the river sediments made sense in light of the historic nature of the
pollution, Romero said. The Great Northern Railway made the transition to
diesel-powered locomotives about 60-70 years ago, and while nobody was
monitoring fuel spills back then, an unknown quantity of diesel may have run
into the river before the interceptor trench was built in 1973.

The EPA has described
four "deliverables" that BNSF must achieve. If the company fails to meet
deadlines, it could be fined or the EPA could take over the work and then bill
BNSF. But Romero and his co-worker, Duc Nguyen, say they want to be reasonable
and work together with BNSF and its consultant, Kennedy/Jenks.

The deliverables include:

• Conduct sampling and
analysis on the river from the railroad's upstream boundary to the Second
Street bridge and begin removing contaminated sediments by Sept. 25.

• Conduct sampling and
analysis on the river from the Second Street bridge to the JP Road bridge, the
most downstream location with a documented report of a sheen being observed.
Assessment and identification of contamination must be completed by the end of
this year, and clean-up must begin by fall 2010.

• Ensure the interceptor
trench is functioning the way it was intended to function. BNSF has already
submitted a plan, Romero said. Several test pits will be dug between the trench
and the river about 5-8 feet deeper than the bottom of the trench to see if
contaminated groundwater is moving beneath or around the trench.

• Identify and remove all
potential petroleum sources within the facility boundary that could impact the
river by late 2010.

"We could change the
due dates," Nguyen said, "but we don't want an open-ended clean-up
project. It needs to be manageable. We also want to work with BNSF and not be
confrontational."